Kerry questions Dean's position on Iraq

[ModerateMiddle]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/924508.asp

Kerry embed Becky Diamond reports that yesterday, the campaign gave this statement: “Howard Dean’s positions on Iraq are as unclear and numerous as his allegiances to major league baseball teams, but far more troubling. It takes a lot of nerve to anoint yourself the straight talk candidate and then talk out of both sides of your mouth at every turn. Howard Dean has no Iraq policy. Until recently Howard Dean said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and had to be disarmed, now he says he knew better all along. One year ago Howard Dean publicly supported the Biden-Lugar resolution which would have authorized military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime without U.N. approval to disarm Iraq, now he holds conference calls to demagogue the issue. Some days he thinks it’s a good thing that Saddam Hussein is gone, other days he’s not so sure.”

[dajabr]

1. Dean,Dean,Dean,Dean... (nt)

[DrFunkenstein]

86. Look How Many Dean Supporters Have Kerry Tags

Speaks for itself.

[Cheviot]

2. Kerry said this with a straight face?

Kerry's the guy who's been on every side of the Iraq issue.

[ModerateMiddle]

4. I beg to differ

Kerry has been consistent. Authorize the use of military force in order to hold Hussein accountable for years of avoiding compliance with UN resolutions to which he had agreed. However, he has held since the beginning that there is a right and a wrong way to conduct the diplomacy and policy, and that Bush hasn't had a real plan for the aftermath of war.

[killbotfactory]

5. I don't.

Kerry said that war MUST be a last resort, and we should go to war because we want to, but because we have to. Then Bush cut short inspections, stopped working with the UN, and invaded.

It was his preference to give diplomacy more time, but he agreed with what Bush did, even though Bush had NO coherent plan to win the peace, rushed to war, and presented no evidence that Iraq was a threat to the US.

[Cha]

15. kerry seems to think Iraq had WMD

"George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." - John Kerry - May 4, 2003"

What Weapons, kerry?


kerry talked the talk and then he voted "Yes".

[blm]

7. What isn't true in his statement, Cheviot?

Care to point to it?

[Cheviot]

8. The main thing that makes me laugh

is that Kerry is the one slinging around these accusations of being on every side of this issue. BTW, Kerry would make a great Icabod Crane right here at Halloween.

[blm]

11. And some of us have noted that Dean made conflicting statements on Iraq.

And was never held accountable for them.

Kerry's position was nuanced which led people to see waffles where there were none. Big difference from making conflicting statements like Dean.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. Kerry=nuanced. Dean=liar.

You're only fooling yourself. They both have waffled on Iraq. The facts are clear.

[sandnsea]

26. NOT nuanced, point blank clear

Saddam has proven his capability to threaten the region. Saddam has proven a desire to obtain WMD. Saddam had not proven an intention to enter the international community as a peaceful nation. Kerry said this from at least 1997.

He supported disarming Iraq. He supported a specific process to do that. He was clear what that process was and has been clear in condemning Bush for not living up to it. It's really quite simple.

[blm]

28. They don't WANT to understand Kerry's position.

It's easier to just say he waffled.

[AWD]

33. I understand that you want to support Kerry...

....but do you need to parrot Right-Wing talking points in order to justify it??

Because that post is exactly like something that could be read at FR.

[sandnsea]

35. Snappy comeback

Deny, divert, attack. Same old, same old.

[AWD]

36. I wasn't trying to insult you...

....but you pulled out all the "Saddam did this", "Saddam did that" quotes.

Kerry screwed up. He voted for a war he never should have. Please just admit that and stop turning your arguments the way RWers do.

[sandnsea]

38. Stating Kerry's position

That's his position. For chrissake, that's Howard Dean's position. Dean said the exact same things about Saddam. The only ones spinning here are Dean and his supporters who can't admit Howard is wishy-washy on this war, spouted off a bunch of Saddam tyrant WMD threats and had no plan to deal with the threats Dean himself said existed.

[AWD]

64. It's OK

Someday you'll get over your denial that Kerry allowed this war to happen.

A "Yes" vote still equals a "Yes" vote, no matter how hard anybody tries to spin it.

[sandnsea]

69. And unilateral invasions is unilateral invasion

And Howard Dean clearly stated he supported it.

[Cha]

12. Welcome to DU, Cheviot!

I can see you've been paying attention.

[sandnsea]

17. Since 1997

His position on Iraq has been clear for years. He authorized holding Saddam accountable for disarmament and cooperating fully with the UN inspectors in order to get that done. He made a clear statement on how that process ought to proceed. And when Bush didn't follow through with the intent of the Congress in that resolution, Kerry spoke out strongly. He couldn't be more clear.

Dean, on the other hand, supported Biden-Lugar which stated very nearly the same thing as the authorization passed. Bush would have had to go to the UN and get a resolution, which he did anyway. That authorization also allowed war to protect the region from 'grave threats'. This is the exact same case Bush made anyway, and he would have done the exact same thing with Biden-Lugar. Dean did support war to deal with the threat of Saddam and the WMD, which he said existed. He has not been an anti-war candidate, he's been all over the map on it and America will see it clearly, even if Deanie's don't.

[killbotfactory]

3. It would be funny if he wasn't serious

Stop fighting those strawmen Kerry, it makes you look foolish.

[blm]

10. Those aren't strawmen and you know it.

We've put up his various statements here at DU since it was first noted he was for the Biden-Lugar bill and that his statement of March 17 said he never doubted the Saddam needed to be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction. You want to blame Kerry for noting Dean's own words?

[killbotfactory]

16. Yes, everyone wanted Saddam disarmed

Even Dean. And he is not pretending that he didn't think Saddam had WMD's, what he's saying is that Bush did not offer evidence or prove Iraq was a threat.

The entire disagreement here is how to go about that.

What Kerry is trying to say is that the only way to do so was to give Bush the authority to invade at any time. It's bullshit.

[blm]

19. No...he said he never believed the evidence of WMD

which conflicts with his other belief that Saddam needed to be disarmed of WMDs. Why would Saddam NEED to be disarmed if there was no evidence that Dean believed in?

[killbotfactory]

30. I thought Saddam had WMD's

I thought Saddam was probably up to something, but doubted he was a threat to anybody and wanted inspectors in to see what he was up to. That doesn't mean I support premature military action. Until there is actually solid proof, I wasn't about to support this war. You don't go to war on a hunch. It's just completely irresponsible.

[sandnsea]

41. How was Howard going to get inspectors in?

[killbotfactory]

43. I don't know, diplomacy, maybe?

Work through the UN and convince our allies Iraq is a threat, so that a multilateral force could be established. You know, like what happened with the last Iraq resolution, maybe?

Threaten to bomb any site Saddam would let be inspected?

Even if you believe that military action was required for Saddam to comply, there are numerous ways threaten Saddam with military action that did not require giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq whenever he wants. This wasn't a choice between the IWR and letting Saddam destroy mankind.

[blm]

47. The IWR got inspectors in.

It was BUSH who failed to implement the full measures of the IWR.

[killbotfactory]

50. No, it was the UN resolution.

Which promised "serious consequences" if Saddam refused to comply.

[sandnsea]

55. How'd we get 1441?

Congress pitched a fit, forced Bush to the UN with our own IWR to back up our position. Nothing would have happened without that threat of force.

[killbotfactory]

57. I don't remember Clinton needing authorization to conquer Iraq

before Operation Desert Fox. Which, as it turns out, totally crippled Iraq's ability to produce WMD. Why did Bush need it? Why ask for Dean's position on what he would do as president, and then say it's wrong and pretend he has no position because Bush took a different approach? We didn't need the IWR to get the UN to disarm Iraq.

[sandnsea]

61. Endless sanctions?

Is that your position now? Just let sanctions and no-fly zones go on forever with the ME countries becoming increasingly angry about it? Bomb the fuck out of the country every 6 months to make sure no WMD were being developed?

Bush didn't need authorization to go into Iraq, Kerry has tried to remind people of that little fact repeatedly. Congress got Bush to go to the UN and handle the situation differently, although war ended up the result anyway. Bush was determined to have it.

Have you given me Dean's solution to Iraq? Are we back to inspectors when I've already shown you diplomacy didn't get the inspectors back in for 4 years. I can't help Dean didn't have a plan except war. That's what he said. Not my fault.

[killbotfactory]

65. Sanctions vs. Invasion

Hmm... yes I think sanctions would be the better option. As we can see, they worked. And didn't cost one American life, or alienate us from the entire world, or swell the ranks of Al-Qaeda, or destabalize a powderkeg of a country and make us responsible for rebuilding it.

If Bush didn't need authorization to go into Iraq, then the Kerry's vote was pointless and he didn't need to support the invasion when it happened. Bush would have no one to blame but his own stupid self, and Kerry would be in a strong position now.

We didn't really try to get inspectors back in. We never got another UN resolution. Why? Because Iraq was not a threat and we destroyed every known or suspected weapons site in 98.

Dean had a plan, you just don't think it would work. I do.

[sandnsea]

70. Let the Iraqi people die

Give the ME more reason to hate the U.S. and terrorists more excuses to attack. Good solution.

Dean's plan had been in place for 4 years. The UN, or Saddam, wasn't going to do anything about inspections or anything else without a credible threat from the U.S. That's why Howard Dean said we needed to tell the UN if they didn't enforce their resolutions, we would. He said it. War was his solution.

[killbotfactory]

73. Do you think the US was hated more before or after the war?

Bush's war was not Dean's solution.

Dean is not against war, he was against Bush's war. There IS a difference.

The UN was enforcing the resolutions.

Iraq was not a threat to the US or it's neighbors.

[sandnsea]

76. Equally

So far. And war was Dean's solution to the Saddam WMD threat. You posted his words yourself, you admitted as much. Dean certainly has grounds to criticize Bush for the way he went about this war, but he has no grounds to say he was against war as a solution to Iraq. He wasn't.

[killbotfactory]

79. Oh, that must be why hatred and distrust for America

went up dramatically when we invaded.

He never said he was against war. He was for war if it justified it. This war was unjustified. That's always been and is his position.

[sandnsea]

80. Then what's his Iraq solution?

You can't say war to disarm Iraq was his solution and then turn around and say he's always been against war with Iraq.

And no, hatred and distrust of America hasn't gone up significantly in the ME because of this war. That was pretty solid beforehand.

[killbotfactory]

83. There was no Iraq problem.

Before 9/11 they were going to go for smart sanctions. Then they saw an opportunity to invade, exploited 9/11, and tried to pin it on a country which had no relation to the tragedy. Iraq was disarmed. We thought he was up to something, we sent in inspectors, they found nothing and disproved several of our claims, we didn't build a multilateral coalition, we didn't go for a final vote in the UN, Bush invaded anyway. Kerry supported that action.

Dean was against Bush's war. It can't not much simpler than that. You can pretend that because Dean would support military action in Iraq as a last resort if certain conditions were met is the same as supporting Bush's war, but it's untrue.

I remember hearing about the record level of hate for America thanks to the invasion. And now that spread to our allies because of our indifference to facts or coalition building.

[sandnsea]

87. Then why did Howard say Saddam was a threat...

if there was no Iraq problem? Why'd he support a war to deal with this non-problem?

"We thought he was up to something, we sent in inspectors, they found nothing and disproved several of our claims, we didn't build a multilateral coalition, we didn't go for a final vote in the UN, Bush invaded anyway."

That's exactly right and Kerry criticized Bush for it and is to this day. He didn't support a war under these conditions, he only supported disarming Saddam. Just like Dean. Only Kerry tells the truth about it.

[sandnsea]

21. Biden-Lugar did the same thing

It calls for unilateral action if the UN didn't act. Exact same thing. Beyond that, Howard Dean said on at least 2 occasions to give Saddam 30 - 60 days and then attack unilaterally. That's far beyond anything any other Democrat anywhere said. It's bullshit alright, and it's been coming out of Howard Dean's mouth on every issue for a very long time.

[killbotfactory]

29. The UN was acting

Bush would be in violation of the resolution and we would have some recourse if he acted like he did with Biden Lugar.

The 30-60 days would be if there was evidence presented of Iraq being a threat or the UN wasn't acting. The UN was acting and there was no evidence of a threat to the US.

[sandnsea]

40. Nope, you're twisting Biden-Lugar

It said a threat to the U.S. or the region, for starters. Bush would have pointed to the ballistic missiles and drones, just like he did in February. They would have used the same nuclear and mushroom cloud scare tactics. They would have said the UN was not living up to its obligations to enforce its own resolutions. There would have been NO difference.

And the 30-60 days comment was in relation to Iraq disarmament.

The point remains, Howard Dean was not against this war in the way he tries to portray. He blabbered around on the issue, spouting off Saddam's threats and maybe war and maybe not, with absolutely no solution to his own claims about Saddam and that he *must* be disarmed.

[killbotfactory]

42. What drones?

The one with balsawood wings and 5-mile radius? The ballistic missles that went 20km past their limit when not loaded with a warhead, which Saddam was destroying.

Oh yeah, that would have justified invasion. Give me a fucking break.

Dean stated clearly that Bush had not justified invasion. He wanted to continue to work with the UN. He wanted the president to admit that occupation would take a lot longer than what was being said. If Bush proved Saddam was a threat to the US or our Allies, he would support a unilateral invasion if workign through the UN failed. That's a big condition which Dean has said was never met. It's not talking around the issue. It's not flip-flopping. It's just plain common sense. Seems like Kerry would appreciate his position since it was basically what Kerry would have done if he wasn't being a political coward.

[sandnsea]

46. What do you think Bush said???

What information do you think Bush used to justify his invasion??? The drone, the missiles, the missing bio/chem weapons, the nuclear mushroom cloud. He would have used the exact same intelligence under Biden-Lugar with the exact same results. Dean would have been in the position of supporting a war vote under Biden-Lugar, just like he ought to be in the position of supporting a war vote now.

I never said Dean flip-flopped. I said he was wishy-washy and talking out of both sides of his mouth. I said he kept blabbering about the Saddam threat and that he must be disarmed, with no plan on how to do that. He said unilateral war would be necessary if the UN didn't enforce its resolutions, while pretending he wasn't supporting war at the same time.

Kerry said Saddam needed to disarm and posed a potential threat based on years of behavior. He also said there was no imminent threat and no reason to rush to war. There was plenty of time for the inspections process to continue. But he never pretended that he had been against military action to hold Saddam accountable to disarm. And when Bush launched the war, he reiterated his support for *disarming Saddam* while also stating he did not believe Bush had exhausted all diplomatic avenues to avoid it. He was completely consistent from the beginning, for years and years he's been consistent on this.

[killbotfactory]

49. Dean would go to the UN first

And wanted evidence Iraq was a threat or the UN refused to do the job of disarmamanet before any unilateral attack would be considered.

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."

October 31st, 2002

"Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

February 27, 2003

I don't think it's that difficult to understand.

[sandnsea]

54. He supported war

Unilaterally if necessary. You put up the exact quotes that prove it. How much more clear can it be for you?

[killbotfactory]

56. How much more clear can it be to you?

I don't care if Dean supports unilateral war. There are times when it is justified. I am not anti-war. Dean is not anti-war. I am against unilateral wars that are totally unjustified. The
same as Dean. It is my opinion that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified and foolish. It's Dean's opinion, too. It is not Kerry's position which is why I disagree with Kerry.

[sandnsea]

63. You posted his words

A unilateral war was Dean's solution to Iraq. He said so. Why does he deny it? Why do you deny it?

[killbotfactory]

66. Unilateral war would be the last resort in a Dean administration.

It's not that hard to understand. Kerry said it. Dean means it.

[sandnsea]

71. Bush launched the war

But I'm glad you are finally admitting Dean supported unilateral war in order to disarm Saddam.

[killbotfactory]

74. Unilateral Action as a LAST resort.

That does not mean invade and take over the goddamn country.

[sandnsea]

77. LAST Resort

How many times has Kerry said LAST RESORT? Did Kerry ever say give Saddam 30-60 days and then invade unilaterally? Kerry's position was much more measured than Dean's. And he's honest about it, from start to finish. A hell of alot more than I can say about Howard the Coward who doesn't have the courage to stand behind one thing he has ever said.

[killbotfactory]

78. You realize Kerry supported Bush, right?

He didn't like the way Bush went about it, but Kerry still thought it was the right decision.

[sandnsea]

81. Nope

He thought disarming Saddam was right, just like Howard did.

[killbotfactory]

84. Howard said the invasion was not justified and came out vocally aganist it

Kerry didn't

[sandnsea]

88. Mr. President, Do Not Rush To War

Kerry was very critical of Bush and the way he was handling the Iraq situation and rushing to war. I already said this is when he made his 'regime change' comment because he was so disgusted with Bush. Dean supported war to deal with Iraq and said he was against the war at the same time. Talking out of both sides of his mouth. Now he rewrites history and pretends he was totally against the war all along. We have a President like that, I don't want another one.

[Jim Sagle]

6. Sen. Kerry, why the long face?

[curse10]

34. ha ha!

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

9. It's about damn time

Howard Dean has gotten away with this 'anti-war' bullshit for far too long. Dennis Kucinich, he's an anti-war candidate. Dean has not been and he would not be one if the war had taken a different turn.

[AWD]

13. Wow....just wow.....

...this coming from John "I'm against the war except when I'm for it" Kerry????

[Bertrand]

14. Kerry made a specific charge

"One year ago Howard Dean publicly supported the Biden-Lugar resolution which would have authorized military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime without U.N. approval to disarm Iraq, now he holds conference calls to demagogue the issue"

Someone should find more info on this to prove that either Dean flip-flopped or Kerry is a blunt liar. Ive got to go to the bank, but ill check it out later to see if i can find anything too.

[killbotfactory]

18. Dean did say he would support Biden Lugar

Which would have required Bush to prove Iraq is a threat to the US, and prove that working with the UN had failed. Dean has always said that he would support military action if Iraq was a proven threat and the UN would do nothing about it. It's not a flip-flop.

Bush said the Biden Lugar would "tie his hands"

Kerry said this of the Biden Lugar:

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar, because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and delivery vehicles. The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted by the resolution, to send a determination to the Congress that the United States has tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great that he must act absent a new U.N. resolution. I believe that this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority that Congress was giving the President.

[sandnsea]

20. Glad you posted this

Did we go to war in Iraq because Bush said he made a case for disarming Iraq? Did he say the threat posed by Iraq's WMD was so great that we needed to act unilaterally?

Did Bush go to the UN and get a new resolution on Iraq?

Did Bush say he tried for months to work with the UN?

Dean supported Biden-Lugar, which called for war to disarm Saddam or protect the U.S. or regional allies from the threat of WMD, unilaterally if necessary. Same thing that the authorization passed called for. Dean's position on Iraq was no different than any other candidate, except Kucinich.

[no name no slogan]

22. That's what THIS Kucinich supporter

...has been telling people all along! :hi:

[killbotfactory]

31. Bush said he made the case

He didn't. He cut short inspections. He stopped working with the UN. He invaded without any proof of a threat, and a lot of accusations that Saddam was up to something nasty he couldn't back up.

Bush would have had to come forward with evidence and work with the UN until they stopped cooperating. Bush never provided evidence. Dean always said there was not enough evidence. Dean could hold him accountable for violating the resolution if it was passed.

[sandnsea]

37. Not true

He worked with the UN clear up until the point France, Germany, Russia and China made it clear they were not going to support further action. He presented his 'evidence' and had 70% of Americans supporting him. That's exactly what he would have done under Biden-Lugar with the same results.

Dean also said Saddam was a threat and MUST be disarmed. He never said how. Well, except giving him 30-60 days to completely comply with the inspections process or invade unilaterally. Of course, he said that back in September so Bush more than met that requirement as well.

Dean just blabbered on, talking out of both sides of his mouth. Saddam's a tyrant, he has WMD, he's a threat to the region, he must be disarmed... but Bush had no evidence and there's no reason for war, yet Dean had no other plan to resolve it either. Hot air, total hot air.

[killbotfactory]

39. They supported more time for inspections

Just like Kerry

The UN was dealing with the problem.

Bush didn't go back to the UN because it would be embarrassing to lose the vote, since there was no good evidence that Saddam was a threat to anybody.

I thought Saddam had WMD, thought he was probably up to something no good, but I still didn't support the invasion because there was no goddamn proof. Invading was foolish. Especially with Bush prematurely cutting short inspections and invading without any proof that Iraq was a threat, and pissing off nearly the entire world in the proccess.

[sandnsea]

44. Doesn't change Bush's actions

It just doesn't change what Bush would have done and said and the resulting consequences. If Biden-Lugar had been passed, Dean would clearly be in the position of having supported a vote for the war. The fact that a very similar bill passed in its place doesn't change Dean's support for war in order to disarm Saddam. Don't you get that??

You keep saying Bush this and Bush that. That's exactly right. BUSH did all of this stuff, not Kerry or any other Democratic Senator who voted for holding Saddam accountable to disarm, in the exact same way Howard Dean said Saddam should be held accountable. Why would Dean keep saying Saddam MUST disarm, by force if necessary, while also saying there was no evidence? Why would he say Saddam MUST disarm while having no plan to make him do that? It's completely irrational and not very responsible for a Presidential candidate.

[killbotfactory]

45. Bush did this stuff

Kerry went along with it even though from his words he most certainly knew it was the wrong thing to do.

There are many ways to get Saddam to disarm that don't involve taking over Iraq and getting 100 thousand soldiers stuck in a middle east powderkeg.

I'm sorry Kerry didn't have the imagination to think of any.

[sandnsea]

48. What was Dean's plan?

You keep saying there were many ways to get Saddam to disarm. We keep going in circles and it always goes back to that. What was Dean's plan?

Kerry did not go along with Bush's arrogant intimidation of the UN and and our allies, and laid out his plan for dealing with Iraq all along. Kerry had a plan, Dean didn't.

[killbotfactory]

51. Go to the UN first

Get a multilateral coalition to coerce Iraq into complying with inspections.

Get in unilaterally if there is proof Iraq is a threat to the US, or the UN refuses to enforce their own resolutions.

Not that difficult to understand.

[sandnsea]

53. We'd been trying since 1998

What do you suppose changed the UN's position in 2002? The IWR perhaps? And you already stated 1441 called for 'serious consequences'. What exactly do you suppose that meant?

There is no doubt in my mind Kerry would have handled Iraq completely differently than Bush did. But I don't know how Dean would have handled it. He just spouts off about Saddam threats without acknowledging the difficulty in dealing with Saddam over 12 years or dealing with the UN. He refuses to admit threat of war was a necessary piece of dealing with Saddam and won't be clear on exactly when that threat of war would have become a necessary action. I don't want a President like that and I don't want a Democratic nominee like that either. It's a sure loser.

[killbotfactory]

59. We disarmed him in 1998

Operation Desert Fox. Totally crippled Iraq's ability to make WMD along with harsh sanctions. The UN didn't do anything because Iraq wasn't a threat to anybody, and Bush didn't care until 9/11 and Rummy and friends found the opportunity to spout off a bunch of false allegation to accomplish a goal they long dreamed of which is/was totally unrealistic and not based on national security.

[sandnsea]

62. Back to endless sanctions

This is just going around in circles. Dean supported this war, you posted the quotes yourself.

[killbotfactory]

67. Oh bullshit.

Dean did not support this war. To pretend he did because he would support a unilateral invasion as a last resort in some hypothetical situation that didn't even come to pass is just nonsense.

[sandnsea]

72. You just said he did up above

The situation DID come to pass. He supported unilateral war as the solution to the Saddam WMD threat. That was his solution.

[killbotfactory]

75. This is insane.

You are trying to say Dean's solution was the same as Bush's because you refuse to believe there was any other possible way to disarm Saddam. It's not true. Sorry.

[sandnsea]

82. Through unilateral military action

Tell the UN to enforce their resolutions or we will. Give Saddam 30-60 days to comply with inspections or invade, unilaterally if necessary. These are the words of Howard Dean that YOU posted. Why do you deny them?

I'm not saying there was no other way to disarm Saddam. I'm just saying Howard Dean supported war as a solution.

[killbotfactory]

85. So what?

When did anybody say that Dean was anti-war? He was for action if it justified it, and in his opinion, it didn't. What's the arguement here?

[sandnsea]

89. Then what was his solution?

Back to the beginning. He said he supported war to disarm Iraq. He said he supported Biden-Lugar. He supported the same actions Bush took up until the invasion, then turned around and said he didn't support any of it. And he continues to lie about being against the war all along. This is not Commander in Chief material. That's been the argument, I guess you missed it.

[blm]

23. Yes...it was the better bill...but Bush STILL would have gone into Iraq

by meeting whatever minimum requirement of ANY bill passed.

He did that with the IWR, too.

[killbotfactory]

32. Well he didn't meet them.

Bush never offered proof of a threat, or proof the UN was not acting. Instead he just threw a bunch of accusations out and pretended the UN was anti-american, bribed a bunch of third world nations to come aboard so he could pretend to have built a coalition, and invaded. Kerry went along with it. Dean didn't.

[blm]

24. Dean, Jan.23

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/012303dean_2002.shtml

I can't wait for those four guys from Congress to come up here and explain to us why they wanted to raise your property taxes after they supported a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America," he said.

Dean also criticized his opponents for voting to give Bush a "blank check" on military intervention in Iraq - and, now, changing their tune on the issue.

"Today, they're running around telling you folks they're all anti-war," he said. (Later, he acknowledged that Lieberman's vote was consistent with the senator's comparatively "hawkish" position on Iraq.) "We're never going to elect a president that does those things. If I voted for the Iraq resolution, I'd be standing in favor, supporting it right now in front of you."

Dean said he would have voted instead for the Biden-Lugar resolution, which he said supported disarming Saddam using multilateral action, and which did not call for a "regime change."
>>>>>>>

[UnapologeticLiberal]

27. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Kerry is accusing Dean of being unclear on Iraq? He is the one who is all over the place on that issue...I still can't figure out exactly what his position is.

Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope

[w4rma]

52. Dean Laid Out Multi-Lateral Iraq Plan in April

Senator Kerry today claimed that Governor Dean doesn't have an Iraq plan. "Governor Dean has no policy on Iraq evidently, except 'no.' 'No' is not a policy." In fact, Dean unveiled his seven-point Iraq Reconstruction plan on April 9--months before Kerry unveiled his. The press release on Governor Dean's multi-lateral plan for reconstruction, and the governor's remarks at the time follow:

Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq

Wednesday April 9, 2003

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Governor Howard Dean, M.D. called for United Nations cooperation in helping rebuild Iraq.

"We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone," Governor Dean said. "Our goal should be what the Administration has promised-an Iraq that is stable, self-sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides-U.S., international and Iraqi-and a program that begins with seven basic points." Those points are:

• A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.
• Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.
• The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.
• The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.
• Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.
• A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.
• A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.
• "We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said.

"That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."

Posted by Zephyr Teachout at 10:10 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001861.html#more

[sandnsea]

58. The war was already underway

What the hell good is an Iraq plan after the war already started? Where was his plan back in 2002? Oh yeah, his plan was a war!!!

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."

[polpilot]

60. Kerry is RUINING his chance to be a part of the Dean Administration.

Dean '04...The New Democratic leader of The NEW Democratic Party.

[MrPeepers]

68. Or perhaps...

it's the other way round.

Peepers